Janice Wendi Fernheimer & Lisa Litterio
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
110 8th Street, Sage 4403
Troy, NY 12180 Contact: fernhj@rpi.edu, littel@rpi.edu
Abstract: Composing Collaborative Video Arguments
The video essay assignment asks students to address an issue that is important to them, work with others in researching and crafting a position, and use video to effectively communicate this argument and persuade others either inside or beyond our class. In this assignment, students work collaboratively in groups of 3-4 to generate a short video argument (no more than 3 minutes) about technology’s impact on public issues. We ask them to submit a topic proposal, a group work contract, an individual and group storyboard, as well as a first and final cut of the video itself. To provide feedback to other groups, we ask that students write an individually-authored rhetorical analysis of another group's first cut. In what follows below you'll find a short overview of the course as a whole and how it fits within the curriculum at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), assignment prompts and grading criteria for the video and rhetorical analysis assignments, some sample student work, and our brief reflections on how the assignment has evolved in response to our reflections and student feedback.
Context: Writing in the Digital Age at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 2008-2010
Writing in the Digital Age is a sophomore-level writing course that was first introduced at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) in Spring 2008 by Janice Fernheimer. Although the course is technically sophomore-level, there is no required first-year writing course at RPI, so this course often serves as an introduction to academic writing and thus also helps students better understand concepts of audience, writing process, collaboration, and research. In many ways, the course functions much as a first-year writing course would at other institutes. The course is divided into two main chunks, where the first third of the semester introduces students to rhetoric/composition practices within a digital context and where students are asked to compose, revise, and then resubmit a rhetorical analysis essay (typically of a web site or a visual/digital composition) in print; i.e., what we term a "traditional academic essay." In the second 2/3 of the semester, students work both individually and in-groups on the video argument and related assignments. Students work in groups of 3-4, though this semester we're experimenting with a few larger groups of 5, to compose a persuasive video essay (using a combination of original footage and other materials), which is submitted in both rough (first submission) and final cut. In between the first and final cut stages, students write individual traditional rhetorical analysis essays of another group's video rough cut, offering analysis and feedback on how to improve its overall rhetorical content, structure, and style for the final cut. Each group receives no fewer than three such essays from other class members. At the semester's end, students submit reflective essays describing and reflecting upon their experiences composing essays in both print and digital formats.
Detailed Video Assignment Prompt from Fall 2009
(available online in original context here) Project 2: Video Argument Staking a Claim in Youtube’s Public Sphere
You’ve all watched movies, documentaries, and more recently youtube videos. Ever since “talking pictures” (as movies were first termed) hit the screen, film has become an incredibly powerful way of reaching large audiences. Whether they present romantic storylines, important issues, or historical events, films and now videos and DVDs play a big role in shaping how people think about and perceive the world in which they live. For this class, you’ve had a chance to watch and analyze Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, a feature length documentary that won him the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize because of its powerful argument about the impact of global warming. This assignment asks you to do what he did, but on a much smaller scale. Rather than making a feature length-argument, you’ll have 3 minutes to address an important public issue raised by technological innovations.
We spent most of the first unit thinking about the ways in which Web 2.0 technologies change how we construct and perform identity and community, how we understand and participate in our political system, and how we conceive and engage in acts of literacy. We talked about links between rhetorical training and democracy, the ways the Internet blurs public and private spheres, the different kinds of issues that web communications help to shape as well as the additional voices they allow to join public conversations about important issues. Throughout the course of the semester, you’ve also been posting your thoughts concerning web-communication controversies through your tweets and responding to what others have written. Hopefully, you’ve been gaining a broader understanding of the many ways that technology often develops faster than our laws, codes of ethics, or social understandings of it. Now is your chance to address an issue that is important to you, work with others in researching and crafting a position, and use video to effectively communicate this argument with others inside and beyond our class.
In this major assignment, you will work collaboratively in groups of 3-4 to generate a short video argument (no more than 3 minutes) about technology’s impact on public issues. This prompt may seem especially broad, but that is because it is intended to encourage inventional possibilities rather than limit them. We will spend some time in class doing an exercise of “group invention.” In other words, we will brainstorm a variety of topics, before you have to choose one to work on over the course of the semester.
You might find it helpful to focus on some of the issue areas we highlighted in our investigation of Web 2.0 technologies: how technology affects/complicates contemporary constructions of community, identity, culture, authorship, ownership, democracy, politics, property, public/private, the environment, and “geography.” But you’re not limited to these areas. The only limitations for subject matter are that videos must do the following:
1) address some aspect of technology’s impact; the issue must be of public concern
2) make an argument, thus enabling your group to add your collective voices to
the public sphere concerning an important public issue
3) effectively engage and employ the multiple modes (text, visuals, sounds,
timing) that videos combine.
4) include research—this might be some of the traditional kind including facts, statistics,
but it might also include interviews with experts, community members, etc.
5) allow all group members to contribute equally.
You should identify a specific audience that your video will address and persuade. Videos may enter into the debate at any stasis (existence, definition, causation, evaluation, policy/proposal), but they should have a clear, well-researched argument that answers the “so-what” question.
“What?,” you say, “But I’ve never made a video before?” and “I don’t have any special equipment, much less special training.” Don’t worry, we’re going to help each other learn the skills you need to craft the best possible argument. This assignment is broken down into several smaller tasks that will guide you through the thinking, composing, and revising process. In fact, aside from helping you arrive at a well-researched opinion about a technology-related public issue, another goal of this assignment is to help you further your thinking about the strengths and limitations of specific media and their relationship to writing or argument. (For example are there arguments that are easier or harder to make in video in contrast to print? What do images and time allow that linear words do not, or vice versa?).
We will spend the last two thirds of the semester working on your videos and the issues that they raise.
Process
In sum, there will be 8 weeks of class devoted explicitly to this project, and several additional weeks intervening in between submissions 2.1 on 11/9 and the final submission (2.2) and oral presentation on the last day of class, Dec. 12/10 (more than a month later!) .
Invention (Generating Ideas)
The collaboration for this assignment will begin early on, when you’re tweeting articles related to Web Communication Controversies. In Week 4, on 9/24, you’ll begin to invent and create possible topics together. You will tweet your ideas. Later in the semester, you’ll break up into teams who share similar interests in order to conduct research and further narrow your topic.
Arrangement (Organizing and Delegating Tasks)
On 10/5, you will commit yourselves to your group. Don’t get too excited, I don’t mean that romantically, I simply mean that you will work collaboratively to draft a work plan that all group members will sign as a binding work contract. Then you’ll work together to research and refine your approach to the topic. By the time it comes time to storyboard, you should have a clear sense of the argument your group will make, and it should have a clear answer to the “so-what factor.” Your storyboards will demonstrate that you know how best to use the tools that video makes possible to craft a persuasive video essay. More specific details about what a storyboard is and how to write one can be found on a separate assignment sheet. Your storyboards will be reviewed and critiqued by your peers and your instructor, and you will have a chance to meet with your instructor and discuss her comments before you begin shooting the film.
Storyboarding
Individual storyboards will be due 10/22 at the beginning of class. You will work together in class to come up with one group storyboard, due at the end of class. You will receive feedback from me on your storyboards by 10/29.
Lights, Camera, Action, Edit(10/29)
You will have a little more than a week to shoot the footage that you will later edit into your film. You are welcome to use whatever equipment you have at hand to capture your footage, so long as you can download it onto your laptop to edit it (think about your digital camera that takes video, your cell phone, heck you can even use your laptop). A number of you are EMAC students, and you’re welcome to use the cameras available from arts. If you don’t have your own video recording device there are a limited number of cameras that can be signed out from me to be used. There are 2 cameras, and there will be about 8 groups, so it is important that you return the cameras promptly so you don’t prevent another group from valuable filming time. For editing, you’re welcome to use MediaMaker on the PC or iMovie on the Mac, but since PCs are required technology at RPI, I will only be providing handouts for Mediamaker. If one of you feels comfortable enough making handouts to share with the class for iMovie, come talk to Dr. Jan about earning some extra credit.
Technical Specs.
The video should be an MP4 using MPEG-4 (FFmpeg) encoding, with a limit of 50 MB. This can be accomplished using a program called HandBrake, available for
Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux (http://handbrake.fr/?article=download).
On 11/9—We will screen the first submissions of everyone’s video, and you will pat yourselves on the back for doing some fine, hard work. But the work will not be over!
Your third assignment for this class will be to select another group’s video and rhetorically analyze it based on your screening. Your essay will serve as a written, peer critique and it will provide them with valuable audience feedback upon which they will base their revisions. It will also give you another opportunity to make an argument in a combination of print and still images. Instructions for video rhetorical analysis are available as a separate document. Once final submissions of the Video Rhetorical Analysis are turned in, you will have additional time to work in your groups to revise your video and prepare a 7 minute oral presentation that you will deliver when you present and submit your final video during our final exam period. (Presentations will be 10 minutes total, including the screening of the final video). Special instructions for the final oral presentation are available as a separate document.
The last thing you will do is write a short, reflective essay explaining your insights into the different (or similar) steps of the composing processes for textual and video authoring. Although I suggest you write a draft of this essay sometime during Spring Break, the final reflection will not be due until the last class day, and I will not require you to submit a first submission. If you would like additional feedback, feel free to visit your Dr. Jan in office hours or to schedule an appointment at the Center for Communication Practices.
Deadlines—(Note: This assignment contains several parts)
Topic Generation and Selection—9/24
Group contract –10/5
Research posts to class blog —10/12, 10/19
Individual/Group storyboards due in class/peer critique—10/22
Video filming/shooting and editing—10/29-11/9
First submission of full video-11/9
Short, Reflective Essay—last class Day,12/10
Revised submission of full video and oral presentation–Last Class Day 12/10
Note: Revised submissions should address peer comments offered in the Final Rhetorical Analysis.
Grades:
Students will be evaluated based on posts to the group research blog, an individual storyboard of no less than 10 pages, the first and final submissions of the video, and the oral presentation of the video to the class.
Individual grades will be given for the research posts, individual story board, Essay 3.1 and 3.2, and short, reflective essay.
Storyboards will be evaluated based on their detail and overall quality.
Videos will be evaluated based on the rhetorical sophistication of their argument, the effective incorporation of research (in the form of quotes, interviews, statistics, images), citation of materials, and the synergy of the multiple media that video entails (sight, sound, timing, text).
Presentations will be evaluated based on the explanation of rhetorical goals, sophistication with which they addressed peer comments for revisions, and the insightfulness of the reflections about the composition and collaborative process.
Detailed Video Evaluation Criteria can be downloaded as a Word Document on course homepage.
Rubric
forthcoming once the table is reformatted
Detailed Assignment Prompt for Essay 3: Rhetorical Analysis of Group Videos from Fall 2009
The Basics
For this assignment you will write a 3-5 pages essay (750-1250 words) providing an in-depth rhetorical analysis of another group’s video. The first and final submissions should be, typed, double-spaced, and carefully proofread. Please refer to the policy statement for formatting requirements (double space, 12 in, Times New Roman, 1-inch margins, etc.). Make sure your paper is turned in electronically (using the proper naming conventions: yourfirstnamelastinitial_3_1; i.e., janf_3_1 for first submission, janf_3_2 for second submission) by email (to me and your peer) for submission 1, and in hard copy to me and the group whose video you’ve evaluated. Remember that papers are due at the beginning of class.
Even if you only cite the video itself you must include a “Works Cited” which follows MLA format. If you choose to include other sources (to complicate evidence in the video itself),they too must be cited appropriately.
The Nitty Gritty
Throughout the semester, we’ve done a lot of collaborative work, and now you have another chance to put that collaborative ethos into practice. Although you’ll be writing an individual essay, its argument will help benefit another group in the class. The purpose of this assignment is twofold. On the one hand, it will help you to hone and refine both your analytical and writing skills. On the other hand, through the process of composing your individual essay, you also will be providing detailed and nuanced peer feedback to your fellow colleagues. That’s right, your job in this assignment is to choose one of the videos produced by another group and craft a rhetorical analysis of it. In your essay, you will evaluate the relative success of the video’s overall argument for its intended audience.
What does that mean exactly? It means you will need to first determine what kind of video you’re dealing with: what is its purpose (to strengthen beliefs of an audience who shares similar beliefs, to change opinions, to persuade an unsympathetic audience, something else?), what is its argument, who is its audience (what values and assumptions will the audience grant automatically, what will have to be earned? what beliefs might the audience members hold dear? how does the video engage or challenge these beliefs, values, assumptions?). Then you’ll have to figure out how well it achieves its purpose for its intended audience using all the “tools of persuasion available” in video composition: narrative structure, sequence of shots and audio, visuals, evidence, audio, editing, timing. You should evaluate its overall effect in terms of how well the shots are composed, how seamlessly the shots are edited, and how smoothly the argument unfolds within the video’s overall narrative. The key question you should keep in mind is –are these strategies effective for the video’s intended audience?
In your paper you will make an argument about the video’s argument. Yup, you’re going to have to take a stand about the rhetorical effectiveness of the video you’re analyzing. Is it persuasive for its audience? If so, why? If not, why not? What kind of work would help increase its impact? You will make one of two kinds of arguments–either that the video is exemplary and successfully meets its rhetorical goals (your essay will then explain how it does this) or that the video could be improved in terms of either composition, content, or both. Chances are, at this stage of the game, most of you will be making the second kind of argument—one that points out where the video misses opportunities to persuade its audience and then provides constructive feedback about how to make the argument more salient for its intended audience. Such constructive feedback might mean refining or focusing the intended audience, restructuring the narrative, revisiting the editing or introducing new shots, including more evidence or providing more context than that which is included, or working on the timing so that audio, image, and text work together more effectively. Your job in this essay is to point out what the video currently does, explain whether or not it works for the audience, and if it doesn’t work, suggest how it might be revised to do a better job of persuading its intended audience. When you make your argument about the video’s argument, you will need to back up your claim with evidence from the video itself. This evidence will come from your careful analysis of specific scenes, selections of evidence, images, sounds, etc.
For the sake of your dear colleagues, please do be mindful of the language you use to discuss these weaker parts of the video. Please remember your goal here is to help your colleagues make a better, more successful video, so your comments should be helpful and couched in the kind of language you would find constructive if it were directed at your own group’s work.
The Due Dates
Mon. Nov. 9—Essay 2.1 due, screenings in class,Blog post about possible critiques due Nov. 12 Thur. Nov. 12-, topic proposal due in class—Writing Workshop
Mon. Nov. 16–No class-time to write at home!
Thurs. Nov. 19–3.1 (full draft) due in class/Peer Critique Mon. Nov. 23 Essay 3.1 returned with comments-
Thurs. Nov. 26-No class enjoy Thanksgiving, but do keep working on your essay!
Mon. Nov. 30—3.2 due to your instructor and your peers
Tips for Developing Your Essay
Describe the video you’ve chosen to examine
Your audience for this paper includes your peers and the instructors for this course. Even though we have already seen the video you’re going to analyze, you should take some time in to explain what type of video it is, what is its purpose, who is its target audience, and what means of persuasion does it employ to achieve its effect? In other words, you should have a clear thesis statement that answers these questions.
Make a Specific Evaluative Claim
Be sure that you are making an evaluative judgment about the video. Have you clearly stated whether or not you think it is successful or in need of improvement? Ask yourself: Is your argument about the quality of the video’s argument and composition? Here is where most students trip up. They fail to think about the video’s relative success for its intended audience. I like to call this the “so what factor” and your paper should be able to answer this question. In other words, you should be able to talk about why the video’s composition has consequences in terms of its overall rhetorical purpose for its specific audience. You should be able to connect the argument you’re making about its overall success back to what the video is trying to do in the world. If you have trouble understanding what I mean here, come talk to me in office hours or ask away in class.
State Criteria for your Evaluation
By what criteria will you be judging the video? We’ll brainstorm some of these in class, but just so you’ve got them written here—you might think about how the video uses ethos, pathos, or logos, or appeals to an audience’s values. You will need to select specific elements that exemplify these appeals, and you should use your written argument to explain and interpret how these appeals are used. It’s ok if you don’t talk about all of them; it would be hard for one paper to do that, but you should have a nuanced and careful analysis of the video in terms of the criteria you select.
Examine Your Claim using your Criteria
After you’ve put forth your claim and your criteria, use the essay as a whole to include and interpret evidence from the video itself that supports your argument. You should describe particular shots, scenes, sounds, etc. and explain how they either help or hinder the case for the intended audience. It is not enough to simply mention the scene– you will have to do the interpretive work to explain how it helps to develop the point you’re making about it. You should incorporate screen shots into your essay. They should be appropriately placed, labeled, and mentioned at an appropriate point in your text.
Consider Alternative Views
Remember that an argument is something with which others can disagree. You should consider those who might disagree with your claims or criteria and attempt to answer the questions of someone who would oppose your viewpoint.
Grading Criteria
Your essay will be evaluated (by you, your peers, and me) according to these criteria:
Clear and concise statement of your evaluative claim
Clear statement and explanation of criteria
Detailed examination and clear interpretation of evidence from the video itself.
Acknowledgement and consideration of alternative claims
Effective essay organization
Overall rhetorical sophistication.
Clear and precise sentence-level rhetoric (grammar and style).
Sample Student Work (Made available with permission from the students)
(forthcoming--working on converting/uploading files and what not)
Reflection
I've now taught 7 sections of this course, and based on student feedback in official course evaluations as well as the reflective assignments, the video assignment is one of the most compelling features of the course. Since most of the students enrolled are typically Engineering or Electronic Media Arts and Composition (EMAC) students, they tend to come well equipped with a variety of technological literacies and savvy. Many of them like to "make stuff." Their reflections suggest that they see the video project as an extension of the "making stuff" ethos, and thus are willing to commit way more time to composing and revising it (which is a good thing, since they seem to require more time than traditional print essays!). Of course, their ability to take a step back and reflect on the way such technologies impact them tends to be less developed, so the course was designed to help them to strengthen some of these critical capabilities. Their final reflective essays tend to point to both similarities and differences in composing across print and digital media; interestingly, they also demonstrate that composing in one helps them learn and invent strategies for the other (and vice versa). They also discuss how much they both enjoyed and benefited from the second rhetorical analysis essay which asked them to provide feedback to another group. Since this second rhetorical analysis assignment stood to help their peers significantly improve the overall quality of their work (and thus also their group's grades), they saw this assignment as one that had real exigence. Also, perhaps not surprisingly, many of them commented that they valued their peers' feedback more than the instructors'. Students also complained that they felt limited by Windows Movie Maker and the editing sophistication it provides. Although we selected it because it comes pre-loaded on their university-required laptops, many students chose to learn Premiere, Premier Elements (also available to them with their laptops), in order to have more control over editing features.
As an instructor, I noticed that the time limit was a factor that sometimes negatively impacted the relative rhetorical sophistication of the videos' overall arguments. Three minutes, which I chose because it seemed to be a good way to limit the amount of hours spent in editing and also because most Youtube videos tend to be this length, is not very much time for crafting a rhetorically sophisticated argument addressed to a specific audience and backed up with evidence. Consequently, this semester, Lisa and I decided to extend the video length to five minutes to see if students might be able to increase rhetorical sophistication and incorporate stronger evidence to make their cases with more time. Students have just begun to form groups and research their topics, so we'll no more at the beginning of April when rough cuts are due.
As a teacher who is relatively new to multimodal instruction, I'd like to emphasize how this assignment was collaborative for instructors as well as students. Writing in the Digital Age was originally conceived as a multi-section writing course to be taught with two TAs, and Lillian Spina-Caza and Kaitlyn Tebordo Wood were critical to the course's conceptualization and initial success. They helped in the generation and writing of assignment prompts as . We drew extensively on Lillian's experiences as a professional video producer to create the storyboarding assignment, which she wrote and introduced the students. In fact, she continues to guest teach even though she is no longer officially affiliated with the course as a TA. Moreover, the students often take an active role in teaching. Graduate students and undergraduate students collaborated to create and introduce Windows Movie Maker Tutorials to the students. Since students in Fall 2009 preferred to use Premiere Elements (which came bundled on their required laptops), a few of them volunteered to create a tutorial and introduce this option to the students in Spring 2010. What I have enjoyed most about this type of collaboration is that graduate and undergraduate students alike get to actively participate in thinking about and implementing undergraduate writing pedagogy.
Caution: One of the challenges of this type of assignment is finding a space to host the actual videos that is both public enough so that students can see each other's videos to comment, reflect, and writing their rhetorical analysis essays and yet private enough that these videos are not totally public so that they could be used in some way that is counter to students' interests. We are fortunate to be able to host them internally on a server at RPI, but we recognize not everyone will have access to the kind of server space required for the large size of video files.
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
110 8th Street, Sage 4403
Troy, NY 12180
Contact: fernhj@rpi.edu, littel@rpi.edu
Abstract: Composing Collaborative Video Arguments
The video essay assignment asks students to address an issue that is important to them, work with others in researching and crafting a position, and use video to effectively communicate this argument and persuade others either inside or beyond our class. In this assignment, students work collaboratively in groups of 3-4 to generate a short video argument (no more than 3 minutes) about technology’s impact on public issues. We ask them to submit a topic proposal, a group work contract, an individual and group storyboard, as well as a first and final cut of the video itself. To provide feedback to other groups, we ask that students write an individually-authored rhetorical analysis of another group's first cut. In what follows below you'll find a short overview of the course as a whole and how it fits within the curriculum at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), assignment prompts and grading criteria for the video and rhetorical analysis assignments, some sample student work, and our brief reflections on how the assignment has evolved in response to our reflections and student feedback.Context: Writing in the Digital Age at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 2008-2010
Writing in the Digital Age is a sophomore-level writing course that was first introduced at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) in Spring 2008 by Janice Fernheimer. Although the course is technically sophomore-level, there is no required first-year writing course at RPI, so this course often serves as an introduction to academic writing and thus also helps students better understand concepts of audience, writing process, collaboration, and research. In many ways, the course functions much as a first-year writing course would at other institutes. The course is divided into two main chunks, where the first third of the semester introduces students to rhetoric/composition practices within a digital context and where students are asked to compose, revise, and then resubmit a rhetorical analysis essay (typically of a web site or a visual/digital composition) in print; i.e., what we term a "traditional academic essay." In the second 2/3 of the semester, students work both individually and in-groups on the video argument and related assignments. Students work in groups of 3-4, though this semester we're experimenting with a few larger groups of 5, to compose a persuasive video essay (using a combination of original footage and other materials), which is submitted in both rough (first submission) and final cut. In between the first and final cut stages, students write individual traditional rhetorical analysis essays of another group's video rough cut, offering analysis and feedback on how to improve its overall rhetorical content, structure, and style for the final cut. Each group receives no fewer than three such essays from other class members. At the semester's end, students submit reflective essays describing and reflecting upon their experiences composing essays in both print and digital formats.Detailed Video Assignment Prompt from Fall 2009
(available online in original context here)Project 2: Video Argument
Staking a Claim in Youtube’s Public Sphere
You’ve all watched movies, documentaries, and more recently youtube videos. Ever since “talking pictures” (as movies were first termed) hit the screen, film has become an incredibly powerful way of reaching large audiences. Whether they present romantic storylines, important issues, or historical events, films and now videos and DVDs play a big role in shaping how people think about and perceive the world in which they live. For this class, you’ve had a chance to watch and analyze Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, a feature length documentary that won him the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize because of its powerful argument about the impact of global warming. This assignment asks you to do what he did, but on a much smaller scale. Rather than making a feature length-argument, you’ll have 3 minutes to address an important public issue raised by technological innovations.
We spent most of the first unit thinking about the ways in which Web 2.0 technologies change how we construct and perform identity and community, how we understand and participate in our political system, and how we conceive and engage in acts of literacy. We talked about links between rhetorical training and democracy, the ways the Internet blurs public and private spheres, the different kinds of issues that web communications help to shape as well as the additional voices they allow to join public conversations about important issues. Throughout the course of the semester, you’ve also been posting your thoughts concerning web-communication controversies through your tweets and responding to what others have written. Hopefully, you’ve been gaining a broader understanding of the many ways that technology often develops faster than our laws, codes of ethics, or social understandings of it. Now is your chance to address an issue that is important to you, work with others in researching and crafting a position, and use video to effectively communicate this argument with others inside and beyond our class.
In this major assignment, you will work collaboratively in groups of 3-4 to generate a short video argument (no more than 3 minutes) about technology’s impact on public issues. This prompt may seem especially broad, but that is because it is intended to encourage inventional possibilities rather than limit them. We will spend some time in class doing an exercise of “group invention.” In other words, we will brainstorm a variety of topics, before you have to choose one to work on over the course of the semester.
You might find it helpful to focus on some of the issue areas we highlighted in our investigation of Web 2.0 technologies: how technology affects/complicates contemporary constructions of community, identity, culture, authorship, ownership, democracy, politics, property, public/private, the environment, and “geography.” But you’re not limited to these areas. The only limitations for subject matter are that videos must do the following:
1) address some aspect of technology’s impact; the issue must be of public concern
2) make an argument, thus enabling your group to add your collective voices to
the public sphere concerning an important public issue
3) effectively engage and employ the multiple modes (text, visuals, sounds,
timing) that videos combine.
4) include research—this might be some of the traditional kind including facts, statistics,
but it might also include interviews with experts, community members, etc.
5) allow all group members to contribute equally.
You should identify a specific audience that your video will address and persuade. Videos may enter into the debate at any stasis (existence, definition, causation, evaluation, policy/proposal), but they should have a clear, well-researched argument that answers the “so-what” question.
“What?,” you say, “But I’ve never made a video before?” and “I don’t have any special equipment, much less special training.” Don’t worry, we’re going to help each other learn the skills you need to craft the best possible argument. This assignment is broken down into several smaller tasks that will guide you through the thinking, composing, and revising process. In fact, aside from helping you arrive at a well-researched opinion about a technology-related public issue, another goal of this assignment is to help you further your thinking about the strengths and limitations of specific media and their relationship to writing or argument. (For example are there arguments that are easier or harder to make in video in contrast to print? What do images and time allow that linear words do not, or vice versa?).
We will spend the last two thirds of the semester working on your videos and the issues that they raise.
Process
In sum, there will be 8 weeks of class devoted explicitly to this project, and several additional weeks intervening in between submissions 2.1 on 11/9 and the final submission (2.2) and oral presentation on the last day of class, Dec. 12/10 (more than a month later!) .
Invention (Generating Ideas)
The collaboration for this assignment will begin early on, when you’re tweeting articles related to Web Communication Controversies. In Week 4, on 9/24, you’ll begin to invent and create possible topics together. You will tweet your ideas. Later in the semester, you’ll break up into teams who share similar interests in order to conduct research and further narrow your topic.
Arrangement (Organizing and Delegating Tasks)
On 10/5, you will commit yourselves to your group. Don’t get too excited, I don’t mean that romantically, I simply mean that you will work collaboratively to draft a work plan that all group members will sign as a binding work contract. Then you’ll work together to research and refine your approach to the topic. By the time it comes time to storyboard, you should have a clear sense of the argument your group will make, and it should have a clear answer to the “so-what factor.” Your storyboards will demonstrate that you know how best to use the tools that video makes possible to craft a persuasive video essay. More specific details about what a storyboard is and how to write one can be found on a separate assignment sheet. Your storyboards will be reviewed and critiqued by your peers and your instructor, and you will have a chance to meet with your instructor and discuss her comments before you begin shooting the film.
Storyboarding
Individual storyboards will be due 10/22 at the beginning of class. You will work together in class to come up with one group storyboard, due at the end of class. You will receive feedback from me on your storyboards by 10/29.
Lights, Camera, Action, Edit (10/29)
You will have a little more than a week to shoot the footage that you will later edit into your film. You are welcome to use whatever equipment you have at hand to capture your footage, so long as you can download it onto your laptop to edit it (think about your digital camera that takes video, your cell phone, heck you can even use your laptop). A number of you are EMAC students, and you’re welcome to use the cameras available from arts. If you don’t have your own video recording device there are a limited number of cameras that can be signed out from me to be used. There are 2 cameras, and there will be about 8 groups, so it is important that you return the cameras promptly so you don’t prevent another group from valuable filming time. For editing, you’re welcome to use MediaMaker on the PC or iMovie on the Mac, but since PCs are required technology at RPI, I will only be providing handouts for Mediamaker. If one of you feels comfortable enough making handouts to share with the class for iMovie, come talk to Dr. Jan about earning some extra credit.
Technical Specs.
The video should be an MP4 using MPEG-4 (FFmpeg) encoding, with a limit of 50 MB. This can be accomplished using a program called HandBrake, available for
Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux (http://handbrake.fr/?article=download).
On 11/9—We will screen the first submissions of everyone’s video, and you will pat yourselves on the back for doing some fine, hard work. But the work will not be over!
Your third assignment for this class will be to select another group’s video and rhetorically analyze it based on your screening. Your essay will serve as a written, peer critique and it will provide them with valuable audience feedback upon which they will base their revisions. It will also give you another opportunity to make an argument in a combination of print and still images. Instructions for video rhetorical analysis are available as a separate document. Once final submissions of the Video Rhetorical Analysis are turned in, you will have additional time to work in your groups to revise your video and prepare a 7 minute oral presentation that you will deliver when you present and submit your final video during our final exam period. (Presentations will be 10 minutes total, including the screening of the final video). Special instructions for the final oral presentation are available as a separate document.
The last thing you will do is write a short, reflective essay explaining your insights into the different (or similar) steps of the composing processes for textual and video authoring. Although I suggest you write a draft of this essay sometime during Spring Break, the final reflection will not be due until the last class day, and I will not require you to submit a first submission. If you would like additional feedback, feel free to visit your Dr. Jan in office hours or to schedule an appointment at the Center for Communication Practices.
Deadlines—(Note: This assignment contains several parts)
Topic Generation and Selection—9/24
Group contract –10/5
Research posts to class blog —10/12, 10/19
Individual/Group storyboards due in class/peer critique—10/22
Video filming/shooting and editing—10/29-11/9
First submission of full video-11/9
Short, Reflective Essay—last class Day,12/10
Revised submission of full video and oral presentation–Last Class Day 12/10
Note: Revised submissions should address peer comments offered in the Final Rhetorical Analysis.
Grades:
Students will be evaluated based on posts to the group research blog, an individual storyboard of no less than 10 pages, the first and final submissions of the video, and the oral presentation of the video to the class.
Individual grades will be given for the research posts, individual story board, Essay 3.1 and 3.2, and short, reflective essay.
Storyboards will be evaluated based on their detail and overall quality.
Videos will be evaluated based on the rhetorical sophistication of their argument, the effective incorporation of research (in the form of quotes, interviews, statistics, images), citation of materials, and the synergy of the multiple media that video entails (sight, sound, timing, text).
Presentations will be evaluated based on the explanation of rhetorical goals, sophistication with which they addressed peer comments for revisions, and the insightfulness of the reflections about the composition and collaborative process.
Detailed Video Evaluation Criteria can be downloaded as a Word Document on course homepage.
Rubric
forthcoming once the table is reformatted
Detailed Assignment Prompt for Essay 3: Rhetorical Analysis of Group Videos from Fall 2009
(available online in original context here)The Basics
For this assignment you will write a 3-5 pages essay (750-1250 words) providing an in-depth rhetorical analysis of another group’s video. The first and final submissions should be, typed, double-spaced, and carefully proofread. Please refer to the policy statement for formatting requirements (double space, 12 in, Times New Roman, 1-inch margins, etc.). Make sure your paper is turned in electronically (using the proper naming conventions: yourfirstnamelastinitial_3_1; i.e., janf_3_1 for first submission, janf_3_2 for second submission) by email (to me and your peer) for submission 1, and in hard copy to me and the group whose video you’ve evaluated. Remember that papers are due at the beginning of class.
Even if you only cite the video itself you must include a “Works Cited” which follows MLA format. If you choose to include other sources (to complicate evidence in the video itself),they too must be cited appropriately.
The Nitty Gritty
Throughout the semester, we’ve done a lot of collaborative work, and now you have another chance to put that collaborative ethos into practice. Although you’ll be writing an individual essay, its argument will help benefit another group in the class. The purpose of this assignment is twofold. On the one hand, it will help you to hone and refine both your analytical and writing skills. On the other hand, through the process of composing your individual essay, you also will be providing detailed and nuanced peer feedback to your fellow colleagues. That’s right, your job in this assignment is to choose one of the videos produced by another group and craft a rhetorical analysis of it. In your essay, you will evaluate the relative success of the video’s overall argument for its intended audience.
What does that mean exactly? It means you will need to first determine what kind of video you’re dealing with: what is its purpose (to strengthen beliefs of an audience who shares similar beliefs, to change opinions, to persuade an unsympathetic audience, something else?), what is its argument, who is its audience (what values and assumptions will the audience grant automatically, what will have to be earned? what beliefs might the audience members hold dear? how does the video engage or challenge these beliefs, values, assumptions?). Then you’ll have to figure out how well it achieves its purpose for its intended audience using all the “tools of persuasion available” in video composition: narrative structure, sequence of shots and audio, visuals, evidence, audio, editing, timing. You should evaluate its overall effect in terms of how well the shots are composed, how seamlessly the shots are edited, and how smoothly the argument unfolds within the video’s overall narrative. The key question you should keep in mind is –are these strategies effective for the video’s intended audience?
In your paper you will make an argument about the video’s argument. Yup, you’re going to have to take a stand about the rhetorical effectiveness of the video you’re analyzing. Is it persuasive for its audience? If so, why? If not, why not? What kind of work would help increase its impact? You will make one of two kinds of arguments–either that the video is exemplary and successfully meets its rhetorical goals (your essay will then explain how it does this) or that the video could be improved in terms of either composition, content, or both. Chances are, at this stage of the game, most of you will be making the second kind of argument—one that points out where the video misses opportunities to persuade its audience and then provides constructive feedback about how to make the argument more salient for its intended audience. Such constructive feedback might mean refining or focusing the intended audience, restructuring the narrative, revisiting the editing or introducing new shots, including more evidence or providing more context than that which is included, or working on the timing so that audio, image, and text work together more effectively. Your job in this essay is to point out what the video currently does, explain whether or not it works for the audience, and if it doesn’t work, suggest how it might be revised to do a better job of persuading its intended audience. When you make your argument about the video’s argument, you will need to back up your claim with evidence from the video itself. This evidence will come from your careful analysis of specific scenes, selections of evidence, images, sounds, etc.
For the sake of your dear colleagues, please do be mindful of the language you use to discuss these weaker parts of the video. Please remember your goal here is to help your colleagues make a better, more successful video, so your comments should be helpful and couched in the kind of language you would find constructive if it were directed at your own group’s work.
The Due Dates
Thur. Nov. 12-, topic proposal due in class—Writing Workshop
Mon. Nov. 23 Essay 3.1 returned with comments-
Tips for Developing Your Essay
Describe the video you’ve chosen to examine
Your audience for this paper includes your peers and the instructors for this course. Even though we have already seen the video you’re going to analyze, you should take some time in to explain what type of video it is, what is its purpose, who is its target audience, and what means of persuasion does it employ to achieve its effect? In other words, you should have a clear thesis statement that answers these questions.
Make a Specific Evaluative Claim
Be sure that you are making an evaluative judgment about the video. Have you clearly stated whether or not you think it is successful or in need of improvement? Ask yourself: Is your argument about the quality of the video’s argument and composition? Here is where most students trip up. They fail to think about the video’s relative success for its intended audience. I like to call this the “so what factor” and your paper should be able to answer this question. In other words, you should be able to talk about why the video’s composition has consequences in terms of its overall rhetorical purpose for its specific audience. You should be able to connect the argument you’re making about its overall success back to what the video is trying to do in the world. If you have trouble understanding what I mean here, come talk to me in office hours or ask away in class.
State Criteria for your Evaluation
By what criteria will you be judging the video? We’ll brainstorm some of these in class, but just so you’ve got them written here—you might think about how the video uses ethos, pathos, or logos, or appeals to an audience’s values. You will need to select specific elements that exemplify these appeals, and you should use your written argument to explain and interpret how these appeals are used. It’s ok if you don’t talk about all of them; it would be hard for one paper to do that, but you should have a nuanced and careful analysis of the video in terms of the criteria you select.
Examine Your Claim using your Criteria
After you’ve put forth your claim and your criteria, use the essay as a whole to include and interpret evidence from the video itself that supports your argument. You should describe particular shots, scenes, sounds, etc. and explain how they either help or hinder the case for the intended audience. It is not enough to simply mention the scene– you will have to do the interpretive work to explain how it helps to develop the point you’re making about it. You should incorporate screen shots into your essay. They should be appropriately placed, labeled, and mentioned at an appropriate point in your text.
Consider Alternative Views
Remember that an argument is something with which others can disagree. You should consider those who might disagree with your claims or criteria and attempt to answer the questions of someone who would oppose your viewpoint.
Grading Criteria
Your essay will be evaluated (by you, your peers, and me) according to these criteria:
Sample Student Work (Made available with permission from the students)
(forthcoming--working on converting/uploading files and what not)Reflection
I've now taught 7 sections of this course, and based on student feedback in official course evaluations as well as the reflective assignments, the video assignment is one of the most compelling features of the course. Since most of the students enrolled are typically Engineering or Electronic Media Arts and Composition (EMAC) students, they tend to come well equipped with a variety of technological literacies and savvy. Many of them like to "make stuff." Their reflections suggest that they see the video project as an extension of the "making stuff" ethos, and thus are willing to commit way more time to composing and revising it (which is a good thing, since they seem to require more time than traditional print essays!). Of course, their ability to take a step back and reflect on the way such technologies impact them tends to be less developed, so the course was designed to help them to strengthen some of these critical capabilities. Their final reflective essays tend to point to both similarities and differences in composing across print and digital media; interestingly, they also demonstrate that composing in one helps them learn and invent strategies for the other (and vice versa). They also discuss how much they both enjoyed and benefited from the second rhetorical analysis essay which asked them to provide feedback to another group. Since this second rhetorical analysis assignment stood to help their peers significantly improve the overall quality of their work (and thus also their group's grades), they saw this assignment as one that had real exigence. Also, perhaps not surprisingly, many of them commented that they valued their peers' feedback more than the instructors'. Students also complained that they felt limited by Windows Movie Maker and the editing sophistication it provides. Although we selected it because it comes pre-loaded on their university-required laptops, many students chose to learn Premiere, Premier Elements (also available to them with their laptops), in order to have more control over editing features.As an instructor, I noticed that the time limit was a factor that sometimes negatively impacted the relative rhetorical sophistication of the videos' overall arguments. Three minutes, which I chose because it seemed to be a good way to limit the amount of hours spent in editing and also because most Youtube videos tend to be this length, is not very much time for crafting a rhetorically sophisticated argument addressed to a specific audience and backed up with evidence. Consequently, this semester, Lisa and I decided to extend the video length to five minutes to see if students might be able to increase rhetorical sophistication and incorporate stronger evidence to make their cases with more time. Students have just begun to form groups and research their topics, so we'll no more at the beginning of April when rough cuts are due.
As a teacher who is relatively new to multimodal instruction, I'd like to emphasize how this assignment was collaborative for instructors as well as students. Writing in the Digital Age was originally conceived as a multi-section writing course to be taught with two TAs, and Lillian Spina-Caza and Kaitlyn Tebordo Wood were critical to the course's conceptualization and initial success. They helped in the generation and writing of assignment prompts as . We drew extensively on Lillian's experiences as a professional video producer to create the storyboarding assignment, which she wrote and introduced the students. In fact, she continues to guest teach even though she is no longer officially affiliated with the course as a TA. Moreover, the students often take an active role in teaching. Graduate students and undergraduate students collaborated to create and introduce Windows Movie Maker Tutorials to the students. Since students in Fall 2009 preferred to use Premiere Elements (which came bundled on their required laptops), a few of them volunteered to create a tutorial and introduce this option to the students in Spring 2010. What I have enjoyed most about this type of collaboration is that graduate and undergraduate students alike get to actively participate in thinking about and implementing undergraduate writing pedagogy.
Caution: One of the challenges of this type of assignment is finding a space to host the actual videos that is both public enough so that students can see each other's videos to comment, reflect, and writing their rhetorical analysis essays and yet private enough that these videos are not totally public so that they could be used in some way that is counter to students' interests. We are fortunate to be able to host them internally on a server at RPI, but we recognize not everyone will have access to the kind of server space required for the large size of video files.
Links to Sample Student Video Arguments:
Rough Cut of Politics in the Digital Age - Spring 2008
Final Version of Politics in the Digital Age - Spring 2008
Rough Cut of Texting Harming Communication Skills - Spring 2009
Final Version of Texting Harming Communication Skills - Spring 2009
Rough Cut of Cell Phone Etiquette - Fall 2009
Final Version of Cell Phone Etiquette - Fall 2009